The 2011 Summer Transfer Rumors - part 2

[Gak Attack]

Ah right, you're now talking about one season only.

Can't even be bothered checking your figures, totally irrelevant.

Of course you can't because I am right... you spent about 300% more the year before, not even Chelsea in their prime were spending that much more than the other teams.

Surely spending is only stupid when it's spending money that you can't afford. As it happens, of course the likes of Arsenal, Man United and to a lesser extent Liverpool are gong to recoup more on sales. We come from a starting point where we just didn't have players in the squad that were worth anything. In time that will change.

Over 20 years all but one club hasn't come close to what you spent in the last few years. While your point has some merit you forget, like us with Carrol is that you are buying most players for more than you will likely sell them for, even if you were to sell them the next year. It's why most of us are frustrated with overspending, teams will make you overspend because they know you will, when it comes to selling though it's often the reverse. I guess for you it's great to have someone pumping the dollars in but you will want to hope that platform is enough to keep you going in years to come, that's a lot of wages and spent money if it doesn't bring home anything worthwhile and circumstances change, especially circumstances that restrict the amount of outside money being put into the club. It's exactly why people think you should only spend what you can make yourselves, no one likes to see clubs come close to death and plummet down the divisions because of poor money management.

Every premier league title winner has bought their silverware.

Very simplistic view but not surprising. Of course you have to spend but you will find over the history of the premier league that the winner often isn't the top spender or even the top spender of the previous 5 years, Chelsea is the only one to spend double than anyone else and win.

A win is a win I guess but history(even though you hate it) will judge a title team like Arsenal more fondly than one that kept out spending and out spending the other teams until they got something. If you want to create a massively uneven playing field you shouldn't be sooking when people throw a bit of shit your way because even with the advantage you are yet to achieve anything meaningful, of course you should and probably will but it's a bit insecure to try and justify it. At least most of the plastic ****.. sorry flags fans didn't bother denying it.

 

[moomba]

Of course you can't because I am right... you spent about 300% more the year before, not even Chelsea in their prime were spending that much more than the other teams.

So what if we did? For 17/18 of the last 20 years Liverpool and many other clubs outspent us by hue amounts on transfer fees and wages. Shit happens, and no one was concerned about the inequities in football finance when we were skint and selling our best players to survive.

And still no-one is bothered about other clubs that spend beyond their means thanks to generous owners.

Over 20 years all but one club hasn't come close to what you spent in the last few years. While your point has some merit you forget, like us with Carrol is that you are buying most players for more than you will likely sell them for, even if you were to sell them the next year. It's why most of us are frustrated with overspending, teams will make you overspend because they know you will, when it comes to selling though it's often the reverse. I guess for you it's great to have someone pumping the dollars in but you will want to hope that platform is enough to keep you going in years to come, that's a lot of wages and spent money if it doesn't bring home anything worthwhile and circumstances change, especially circumstances that restrict the amount of outside money being put into the club. It's exactly why people think you should only spend what you can make yourselves, no one likes to see clubs come close to death and plummet down the divisions because of poor money management.

Over the course of the premier league we've outspent you by less than £5m a year. Sell Tevez and Balotelli this year and there will be next to nothing in it. that the amount needed to buy a top, top player back in the first ten years of the premier league is a fraction of what it takes to buy a top player now it's no surprise that the people spending now, are showing the biggest figures.

And our spending so far has:
- vastly improved the squad and the quality of play we get to see
- improved the facilities at the club
- purchased land for a new training facility in Clayton that will be the best in the world
- Helped out a lot of clubs bottom line with big money signings
- reduced out debt to one of the smallest in the league
- increased our turnover from £60m two or three years ago to well over £100m now.
- Got us into the champions league



FFPR is coming in. But by spending what we've spent we've just opened up the potential for an additional £30-40m per year in revenue. In the last three years our turnover has gone up by about 80%, we'll soon have one of the biggest turnovers in the league. It wouldn't happen without spending.

We can afford it, we've done it. It's time everyone else gets over it.

Very simplistic view but not surprising. Of course you have to spend but you will find over the history of the premier league that the winner often isn't the top spender or even the top spender of the previous 5 years, Chelsea is the only one to spend double than anyone else and win.

A win is a win I guess but history(even though you hate it) will judge a title team like Arsenal more fondly than one that kept out spending and out spending the other teams until they got something.

Blackburn spent big to build a squad capable of winning the league. Man United spent big (in relative terms), Chelsea spent big. You just don't win if you don't spend, particularly nowadays. Particularly if you start from the lower end of the premier league, it was only 12 years ago that were were playing in the third division so we had a fair bit of catching up to do.

And I couldn't give less of a shit if history doesn't judge us as kindly as Arsenal. Football history is full of bias, revisionism and sky 4 whitewashing anyway.

 

[moomba]

he doesn't seem like a mancini type of defensive signing.

Agreed, but we don't have the traditional approach to signings.

Mancini does like his fullbacks to bomb forward, but he likes his defensive solidity even more, and he likes size in his defence. Seems more a Brian Marwood target to me.

On a separate note, Micah Richards has come on in leaps and bounds under Mancini and it's a shame Capello refuses to give him a real shot at England senior level. He is the typical Mancini fullback I think.

 

[Latro]

French media are reporting Clichy to City is all but done. Meant to be for 7 million pounds.

Gervinho is meant to be at Arsenal for a medical.

 

[moomba]

I should point out that along with the rumours of Clichy to City, there have been plenty of rumours of Bridge to Liverpool. So their LB problems will be over despite missing out on Clichy.

In all seriousness, it doesn't seem a NESV (whatever they're called now) type signing. No resale value, short term solution, and high wages. Although he is English.

 

[moomba]

French media are reporting Clichy to City is all but done. Meant to be for 7 million pounds.

Gervinho is meant to be at Arsenal for a medical.

You pleased if that goes through?

Seems to have gone backwards over the past few years.

Still, not a lot of money to get a replacement, although maybe Gibbs will get a chance.

 

[Zidane98]

Neymar has apparently chosen Real Madrid over all the other clubs:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/s...al-madrid-over-barcelona-and-chelsea'?cc=3436

Were Barcelona seriously willing to buy him along with Alexis Sanchez?

Barca were just showing interest in an effort to get Real to waste more money.

 

[moomba]

Don't think he was ever going to go anywhere else.

In fact I strongly doubt we even put a bid in despite the media talk of a bid accepted.

 

[Latro]

You pleased if that goes through?

Seems to have gone backwards over the past few years.

Still, not a lot of money to get a replacement, although maybe Gibbs will get a chance.

Yes happy to see him leave. He almost went to Barca last year.

He has to be replaced Gibbs is too injury prone and I dont know if he is good enough.

 

[moomba]

Lot of talk about Nasri to City too. Talksport have apparently said we've put in a £20m bid for him.

Few different posters on the city boards (could all be WUMs) have said that he's in town right now with City suits.

 

[Zidane98]

Much more likely for Nasri to join City although Arsenal will ensure that City get ripped a new arseh*le with the transfer fee.

 

[apollo_creed]

Anyway, I've learnt something from this thread.

None of Liverpool's recent success, or anything they've achieved counts because they've spent 100x more than Blackpool in that time. That's not fair is it?

On the logic of Liverpool fans in here - no one could ever actually achieve anything in football because they spent more than someone else. The only around it I suppose, is not to spend any money at all? Unless someone can think of a better way?

 

[Borgsta]

Let me clarify, I meant I am out of the loop as in I didnt hear him linked with us before that article saying he has joined the club - thats not 'criticizing the deal'.... is it? Way to jump the gun there Borgsta.

This is not criticising the deal????

Great to see the 2-3 key, big name signings are going ahead Harry. great way to show Modric we mean business.

And wait... we get rid of dos Santos, then bring in this guy?

 

[Magma]

nasri to city?

i would lose my shit. that would be orgasmic.

clichy is alright i guess. wonder how he feels about being a backup player.

i've seen southampton might make a shock bid for riise, who's in his last year and frozen out under new boss luis enrique.

 

[GrandBlue]

Barca were just showing interest in an effort to get Real to waste more money.

He has a release clause that was met by 5 clubs, including Real and Barcelona.

Do you know what those are?

 

[Coledinho]

He has a release clause that was met by 5 clubs, including Real and Barcelona.

Do you know what those are?

You do realise how release clauses work dont you? Geniunely when you agree a release clause you then have full control over how said fee is paid. You can pay it upfront OR you can do what most clubs do and pay it out over the length of the initial contract handed to the player.

In that case Barcelona could of easily afforded both Sanchez and Neymar by having it eat into future transfer budgets as opposed to the current one.

All in all though it seems like a move to Real Madrid was decided upon by Neymar a long long time ago

 

[GrandBlue]

You do realise how release clauses work dont you? Geniunely when you agree a release clause you then have full control over how said fee is paid. You can pay it upfront OR you can do what most clubs do and pay it out over the length of the initial contract handed to the player.

In that case Barcelona could of easily afforded both Sanchez and Neymar by having it eat into future transfer budgets as opposed to the current one.

All in all though it seems like a move to Real Madrid was decided upon by Neymar a long long time ago

You missed the point.

If a player has a release clause that teams are willing to activate, then Barcelona wouldn't be bidding just to make Madrid pay more (which is what Mr.Delusional thought).

Of course Barcelona could afford them both... but it would be ****ing stupid. I understand squad rotations are important but having one of Messi, Villa, Pedro or Sanchez on the bench is pushing it... add Neymar and then it gets ridiculous.

 

[Coledinho]

You missed the point.

If a player has a release clause that teams are willing to activate, then Barcelona wouldn't be bidding just to make Madrid pay more (which is what Mr.Delusional thought).

Of course Barcelona could afford them both... but it would be ****ing stupid. I understand squad rotations are important but having one of Messi, Villa, Pedro or Sanchez on the bench is pushing it... add Neymar and then it gets ridiculous.

Neymar is alot more then meets the eye. Hes good enough to backup as a CM too as much as people fail to realise this. Its where he initially started his career for Santos before moving in a more attacking role

 

[Asgardian]

It's all a moot point anyway, King Kenny is buying British at the moment.

Kenny Dalglish is king????????

Wouldn't Sir Alex Ferguson be the only true monarch in soccer?

Looks like Neymar is finally leaving Brazil to join one of five sides in Europe who have matched his release clause.
Either Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Manchester City or Russian side Anzhi Makhachkala its been reported.

I've never heard of them, hardly surprising as I'm not much of a soccer fan, but why would a billionaire buy a Russian club with a 20,000 seat capacity stadium?

Would the Russian league generate much in the way of television rights?

Would Russian soccer clubs generate huge sponsorships?

I've never seen any Russian soccer on Foxtel, are any of their matches televised outside of Russia?

Hardly seems to be a club that could mix it with Manchester City's oil billions.

If Liverpool offer 28 mill first do you really think any club in world football is going to match that fee?

Again my soccer knowledge is limited, but are there not several mega rich soccer clubs with even more mega rich owners?

Liverpool at the very least will drive the price up but in reality they could drive it up to a point no other club will touch thereby winning the race for his signature, just like they did with your lot and Andy Carroll

Isn't that false economy?

Shouldn't a soccer club pay up to what a player is worth, rather than being determined to just win a pissing contest?

 

[bloods01]

nasri to city?

i would lose my shit. that would be orgasmic.

clichy is alright i guess. wonder how he feels about being a backup player.

i've seen southampton might make a shock bid for riise, who's in his last year and frozen out under new boss luis enrique.

Clichy going to City paves the way for Bridge to come to Liverpool. We're in the market for a left back...and are supposedly keen...

 

[Coledinho]

Asgardian. Russian soccer clubs are run tax free. The scale of the league is on a much smaller scale but the wages they offer are tax free and therefore it makes them a viable option on the world stage. Not for a player like Neymar no but a player like say Drogba yes IMO.

Soccer is the worlds biggest false economy

There may be several mega rich soccer clubs but there are also several mega rich art collectors in the world too and I doubt the richest of the lot wins every bidding war. It depends on the needs and wants of the bidder.

Out of all the rich clubs in world football no club would be more desperate for a LW then Liverpool (maybe Inter but id argue Liverpool is richer). Even then the ones that are richer (and would want a LW) would target a Gareth Bale not a Juan Mata due to the added versatility he would provide.

 

[Jolldo87]

I didn't think Liverpool could do worse than Konchesky.

Please sign Bridge.

 

[Coledinho]

I didn't think Liverpool could do worse than Konchesky.

Please sign Bridge.

More chance of Perth Glory signing Neymar then Bridge signing for Liverpool. bloods01 is talking from The Sun

 

[Asgardian]

Asgardian. Russian soccer clubs are run tax free. The scale of the league is on a much smaller scale but the wages they offer are tax free and therefore it makes them a viable option on the world stage. Not for a player like Neymar no but a player like say Drogba yes IMO.

Okay, firstly thanks for the reply, I didn't know that about Russian soccer.

A question about it though, now I'm not an accountant or tax agent or anything of the sort, but if an English player, or Italian, Spanish or whatever, played for a Russian club and still maintained his home in his country of origin and lived there between seasons, wouldn't he still have to pay the taxes proscribed by his home country?

Soccer is the worlds biggest false economy

Isn't there a chance of the runaway costs actually harming the sport, send the clubs without a bankroll to the wall?

Again I do not know the circumstances, but are not the majority of clubs surviving without the deep pockets?

And also are there not clubs penalised by their leagues for being insolvent?

There may be several mega rich soccer clubs but there are also several mega rich art collectors in the world too and I doubt the richest of the lot wins every bidding war. It depends on the needs and wants of the bidder.

Sounds like the latest playing acquisitions should be displayed on the owners wall between games. ...

Out of all the rich clubs in world football no club would be more desperate for a LW then Liverpool (maybe Inter but id argue Liverpool is richer). Even then the ones that are richer (and would want a LW) would target a Gareth Bale not a Juan Mata due to the added versatility he would provide.

Okay, you've got me, LW???????????????

Is Mata the best of his type that is currently available?

Is Bale the best of his type, but isn't currently available?

 

[Coledinho]

Dont know the EU tax rules but Im pretty sure players earn a living tax free regardless of citizenship. The clubs may foot the tax bill owed to other country perhaps

Runaway costs do harm the sport. Thats why the biggest clubs in the world like Manchester United, Real Madrid and Barcelona are also the most in debt in the world, and thats why alot of clubs in the world are declaring bankruptcy or scraping very close to it.

I didnt realise you were that clueless about soccer so sorry for that analogy but Bale is a better acquisition then Mata would be for any top club. LW is left wing btw.